So we, as a society, have “peeping tom” laws to protect people who might unknowingly expose themselves to the creepy peepers of, well, creepy peepers who get their thrills from seeing and sometimes photographing strangers revealing more than they meant to.
It would seem reasonable enough to consider surreptitiously taken “upskirt” photographs as violations of peeping tom laws. But not in Massachusetts: On Wednesday, the Supreme Judicial Court in that state ruled that upskirt photographs are legally ok, as the laws there are written to apply only to protect victims who are “partially nude,” not those who are merely wearing short skirts.
In the wake of the ruling, legislators and women’s rights advocates are saying that the laws — written before cell phone camera were ubiquitous — need an update.
Naturally, this has some of the dedicated Human Rights activists in the Men’s Rights subreddit in an uproar. How dare anyone challenge their sacred right to take pictures of women’s panties on public transportation without their consent!
![Demonspawn [-1] 6 points 7 hours ago (26|20) Wearing a skirt has consequences. If we use state violence to protect women from the consequences of her choice to wear a skirt, we remove her agency. This man didn't assault her, didn't touch her... all he did was take a picture of what her choice in clothing exposed to the public. How is that criminal to the point of deserving of state violence upon him? This is saying that protecting women from the consequences of their choices in clothing is more important than men's freedom. permalink save source save give gold hide child comments [–]nigglereddit 5 points 6 hours ago (13|8) You're absolutely correct. If you wear clothing which exposes parts of your body from some angles, you have to expect that someone at that angle will see those parts of your body. You can't tell everyone not to see you from those angles because you're not comfortable with that part of your body being seen; that's ridiculous. If you're uncomfortable it is your job to cover that part of your body. permalink save source save parent give gold [–]DaNiceguy [-2] 4 points 4 hours ago (11|7) Ah but you see the wrong man saw it. That makes him a criminal, right?](https://i0.wp.com/www.wehuntedthemammoth.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/demonskirt.png?resize=575%2C448&ssl=1)
“Wearing a skirt has consequences!” What a perfect slogan for a “movement” that is about little more than tearing down half of humanity in the name of, what, a man’s right to be a peeping tom? Put it on a t-shirt, Demonspawn, and show the world the kind of creep you are.
NOTE: Thanks to Cloudiah for pointing me to this.
UPDATE: The Massachusetts State Legislature, moving surprisingly quickly, has passed a new law explicitly banning upskirt photos; it could be signed into law by tomorrow.
Well I guess “feel dehumanized” is the wrong way to put it. It is dehumanizing. It makes me feel keenly aware of the fact that some people don’t think of me as a person.
@janipurr
You might be right about the alternate universe thing. It certainly seems that way, at least. “What do you mean it’s creepy to take photos up a skirt? It’s really just like saying hi! Really!”
Oh, and are you new? I’m fairly new myself, so I feel like sharing the joy a bit…
here’s a welcome package!
Alice – I’ve lost track; it was the second link you left, I think.
kittehs – that would be /r/creepyPMs. I’m not a moderator there, so I don’t know what’s up with that. However, I am aware that they have rules in order to make it more of a safe-space for people submitting creepy PMs. Usually if your comments are deleted there, it’s because you broke one of their sub rules.
I love “DaNiceGuy”‘s comment that women are only offended/upset by the idea of upskirt photos when they don’t find the photographer attractive. I don’t care if you look like Ralph Fiennes circa 1995 and are riding a unicorn. If you try to take a picture of my panties without my knowledge I’m not cool with it!
Ewww, just ewww.
Alice – yeah, it was clear they’d deleted and eventually banned because they broke the rules; I wondered if you’d seen the comments before that happened.
If there was a legal case involving a Scottish harpy surreptitiously taking a picture up some unsuspecting bloke’s kilt, and she got away with it, I can only imagine the froth that these people would work themselves into.
@Alice Sanguinaria: Sad thing is, he isn’t wrong about men doing horrible things when they feel alone and/or spurned. My uncle blew his head off with a shotgun when his fiance broke up with him, whilst parked in his car in front of her house. And it actually wasn’t her that found his body, it was her young niece. But blaming women for that stuff is horrible and victim-blamey as all hell. For all their talk of “taking responsibility”, MRAs sure as hell don’t want men to have any responsibility for their actions. For my money, they are the real misandrists here. :
TRIGGER WARNING: Horrible, gorey suicide is talked about in my post.
If anyone needs brain bleach, here is a video of cats playing the velociraptors in Jurassic Park
They do seem to believe that all men (for their value of ‘men’) desire to behave in this way, and are only deterred by cowardice and/or feminist oppression. The reality, that most men are at best bewildered by such things, and more usually disgusted, is too much for them to take. Cheers to the Massachusetts Legislature and Governor Patrick for their quick action.
Cat Raptors!
Want!
Hey, if wearing skirts has consequences, so should taking pervy pictures up said skirt! Namely, getting one’s camera stomped on, getting yelled at, and/or getting a knee or elbow in a sensitive area. It’s only fair, right?!
*self-consciously looks for self in photo of a T station she passes through frequently*
The headline in today’s Metro (the free paper for public transit riders) was literally “UPSKIRT PHOTOS OK IN EYES OF LAW”, and I couldn’t shake the feeling it was more of a joyful proclamation than a news update. Or at least, some people will read it that way.
It’s not like we’re flashing our panties at people (not that it would be OK then, but let’s skip that for the sake of this bullshit “argument). You have to go to an effort to be at an angle where you can see up someone’s skirt. And even then, seeing =/= taking a picture.
I’m reminded of this posy from Tumblr about why Creepshots is terrible. Basically these guys have porn and skin mags and yet for some, it’s just not enough. They don’t want the freely available images of women who consented to be looked at naked, because for them the thrill is in the violation, and in making all women feel unsafe because any given woman could be violated in this way.
Yes, doing X without my consent is different from doing X with my consent. Even when it involves a woman’s body. Even when it happens in public. And that’s what the MRM is really mad about.
Isn’t that why you can’t disable the sound on an iPhone’s camera? I heard Japanese phones are made that way, too, for this reason.
Or, you know, “man evades security and jumps walls to photograph Kate Middleton topless on her private property, people ask why Middleton was outside topless in the first place.”
Thank God. I was getting nauseous just thinking about riding the T in a skirt (wouldn’t be any time soon, because it’s still sub-freezing out, but soon…)
Close: Libertarianland, where the mere existence and enforcement of laws is a form of violence by the state.
Count me in! I’d want to see if his camera would fit up his nose.
No idea – I don’t use Apple stuff, but that’s a very good reason if it’s true.
It’s pretty much the same as the old argument that a woman can’t have been a rape victim if she’s had consensual premarital sex. If you let some men see your panties, you’ve given all men an all access pass to them forever! Barf.
“The wrong man saw it. That makes him a criminal”.
Has there ever been a more clear statement of the MRA belief that if you have sex with one dude, you must have sex with them all?
Fucking yeah I only let particular guys see me in my panties! Right now, I don’t let anyone see me in my panties, therefore ALL MEN are the WRONG MAN because I’m a human being not a sexbotslave.
There is something particularly infuriating about how Demonspawn calls a law against purposefully contorting one’s body and holding one’s camera at odd angles in order to take a picture up a woman’s skirt without her knowledge and consent “state violence;” but has no concern at all for the women who’s boundaries and privacy have just been violated, and in fact blames them for causing this to happen by wearing skirts.
“Why do all women assume all guys are creeps and rapists?”
Men, you have your answer.
Can’t they understand context? If someone sneezes on me and apologizes I’m cool with it (maybe grossed out) but if someone spots me in a crowd, comes up and spits in my face…that’s serious. But I guess with their argument it’s all just bodily fluids so it’s cool. Checking a girl out is not the same as shoving a camera between her legs.
“The wrong man saw it” makes it sound like the man saw it by accident. We’re not talking about someone revealing a bit of underwear or flesh while bending over, for instance, and some guy seeing it because he happened to be looking that way (and a decent bloke would probably look away if it happened). No, the pervert made an effort to see and record what was not on public display, intentionally or not.
It’s exactly what that tumblr emilygoddess linked to says: it’s about the wish to humiliate, frighten and violate.
deniseeliza – with you on the all men are the wrong man. As far as I’m concerned, it’s always that (sexually) every man in the world is a ghost, doesn’t exist, for me: Mr K is the only one alive. That’s not about hating men, which is doubtless how MRAs would read it, even though they expect a woman, any woman, to be utterly devoted to them and never look at any other guy.
They don’t even see other men as real, individual people, I suspect, given their rage at women ever having sex with or liking them, and the MISANDRIST! way they lump all men into their own rapistwannabe mindset.
State violence … yeah, I’ll believe that the day the police actually use violence on some pervert for doing this.
I don’t even think he’s concerned about state violence; he’s probably just concerned about perpetrators of sexual harassment being held accountable (be it via the law or something that serves similar purposes). Like all libertarians, his opposition to state violence is rooted in self-serving politics.
I do believe that it is possible to make a convincing theory of the state being rooted in institutionalized violence (intersecting with forms of social oppression like white supremacy and patriarchy), but MRAs certainly aren’t the ones who can do so. When MRAs criticize the state, it seems to be based on their concern about not being allowed to be an entitled asshole. It’s no surprise, given that the MRM is just another form of patriarchal entitlement.
This is pretty much what I was trying to convey. There’s legit anarchist theory, and then there’s “I’m opposed to laws/the state because it’s preventing me from hurting other people”, which is what so much Libertarian thought seems to boil down to.
I can’t help but think of the expression on the faces of all those members of the ledge who have daughters in schools with dress codes that require they wear skirts. They got right on this matter quick as a wink, eh?